Multiplayer Hub Logo  
  Powered by Noble Master Games, http://www.noblemaster.com Multiplayer Dragon
  Forums Twitter Dev. Blog ⊕  
Home > Forums

MultiplayerHub.com
» Forums|New Posts
» Twitter
» Dev. Blog
» About
» Contact Us
Showcase
» Age of Conquest
» Demise of Nations
» Retro Commander

































Multiplayer Forums


Board index » Games » Other Games


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

How should the environment look like?
One big city 33%  33%  [ 4 ]
One big map which allows for multiple cities 67%  67%  [ 8 ]
Total votes : 12
Author Message
 Post subject: One Big City vs. One Big Map
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2007, 13:32 
Game Developer
Game Developer
User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2005, 02:34
Posts: 8541
Location: Honolulu
This is a preliminary poll to determine the type of game. Would you rather play one big city with multiple players in it -OR- one big map with multiple cities?

BIG CITY:
-One big city means there will be no military actions. (difficult to add)
-Probably real-estate type interaction
-buy/sell with other players
-different type of players: major, builder, ...

BIG MAP:
-One big map allows players to play against other cities
-several players could still build one city and go against others
-cities (=players) could collaborate/trade/import/export
-high-level military actions

_________________
play: Age of Conquest IV


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Mar 2007, 13:40 
Knight
Knight
User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2006, 23:37
Posts: 2315
Location: Mostlikely at the bar
One big city. Everyone start with a little village but over time you get one big city.

No military actions imo ... doesn't belong in a game like this
Maybe you should be able to hire the mafia or some streetgang to lower the lewel of your opponents part of town.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Mar 2007, 01:12 
Mercenary
Mercenary
User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2007, 06:25
Posts: 934
Location: burning l. e.
i agree with stig. on the whole line! :^^:

_________________
skegg�ld, sk�lm�ld,
skildir ro klofnir,
vind�ld, varg�ld,
��ur ver�ld steypisk,
mun engi matr
��rum �yrma.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Mar 2007, 08:41 
Game Developer
Game Developer
User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2005, 02:34
Posts: 8541
Location: Honolulu
I like the multiple cities one better! Some players could still build a city together! The multiple cities one allows for more options in my opinion.

_________________
play: Age of Conquest IV


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Mar 2007, 09:58 
Knight
Knight
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2006, 02:55
Posts: 3072
Location: Wigan, UK
i'm for serveral citys, mainly because i can't live without combat, but also because i feel the one city idea can always be added as a new game type later, i know most feel sim city is the way to go, but it's not the type of game you go back too for years

with the abillity to have serval citys and create trade or war with neighbours, you'd more likely to get peeps on a cross-over from AO, and possible the clans acting together too

we need to bear in mind that there is a large collection of warmongers out there and most find there way to AO, those who like the format stay, making the game for them then incorperating the peaceful stuff is the way i feel it should go

_________________
ImageShow me force and reep what you sowImage
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Mar 2007, 10:36 
Mercenary
Mercenary
User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2007, 06:25
Posts: 934
Location: burning l. e.
i can live with the "one city as new game type, added later" option. ;)

_________________
skegg�ld, sk�lm�ld,
skildir ro klofnir,
vind�ld, varg�ld,
��ur ver�ld steypisk,
mun engi matr
��rum �yrma.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 29 Mar 2007, 23:49 
Mercenary
Mercenary
User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2007, 06:25
Posts: 934
Location: burning l. e.
with me being tolerant we would have voted for "multiple cities".
that could be added to "plan so far".
i have a feeling that there are not many more people about to vote... :/

_________________
skegg�ld, sk�lm�ld,
skildir ro klofnir,
vind�ld, varg�ld,
��ur ver�ld steypisk,
mun engi matr
��rum �yrma.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04 Apr 2007, 15:09 
Freeman
Freeman
User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2006, 13:34
Posts: 139
Location: Essex, England
Multiple cities.

If you look at it like SimCity you can make it so each player is the mayor (Or leader of some sort) of each city. You could include things like sport teams for each city too.

And possibly a list of attributes for the players to choose to define thier own character which inturn, effect how his people react to him/her. For example; Religious Zealot = +30 rating with religious people. Churches are 10% cheaper. (I recommend looking up the game; Tropico. And buying a copy.)

_________________
Gods Of War - http://www.hostingphpbb.com/forum/godofwar.html

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04 Apr 2007, 15:18 
Game Developer
Game Developer
User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2005, 02:34
Posts: 8541
Location: Honolulu
yes - I believe multiple cities is more fun!

_________________
play: Age of Conquest IV


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 09 Apr 2007, 17:18 
Mercenary
Mercenary
User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 20:25
Posts: 918
I vote for one city, otherwise it will resemble AO very closely. A one city take over sounds alot better, it gives more possibilities of inner city managment.


If multiple city option is chosen, then it should have a pacifict diplomacy besides militaristic diplomacy, which would depend on internal politics of the city. Pacifist diplomacy could overweight militaristic by better economy or better world standing. This will keep city simulation alive, otherwise it creates another RTS, build a base, gain resources send a superrior force to take over other base.

_________________
Image ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 Apr 2007, 17:20 
Merchant
Merchant

Joined: 19 Feb 2007, 21:25
Posts: 436
Location: California
i vote for multipl becuz, if u make such a thing as city council(which is SOOOOO important, becuz they decide construction rights etc in real life) then if someone is mayor and their 2 clanmates are city council members, everyone else is screwed over....with multiple cities, no one city would like the other to become powerful(have a leader) hence being able to send funds to enemies there(for bribes?) or stop funds(aka resources) for trade into that city.....and one city just sounds a tad like the the map cubix...but in a city

this way, there's 2 lvls of gameply, inter and intra city ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Apr 2007, 09:30 
Freeman
Freeman
User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2007, 09:21
Posts: 101
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
I agree with Petr for all of the reasons he stated. That and I was a big fan of simcity but was always dissapointed in the limited interaction that you get out of the neighboring cities.

Another aspect of it all that I am wondering about is population.

With a big map, you could have multiple cities competing for population. Certain things attract people, taxes, recreation, landscape and strip clubs.

I think another important thing, as opposed to intra-city wars, is crime. Crime is something that will filter through to neighboring cities and make life more interesting, especially if you can controll the police of another city through bribes.

_________________
Mmooooo! *click* Moooo? *BANG*


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Green Smilies by http://www.greensmilies.com/

Home  |  Forums  |  Twitter  |  Dev. Blog  |  About  |  Contact